May 30, 2018 — I was shocked that NF would publish such an inflammatory opinion piece as the recent editorial, “A hard look at NOAA’s observer program” (Dock Talk, NF March ’18, p. 7). This kind of rhetoric only serves to divide. Observers have always unfairly been the brunt of frustrations that fishermen experience between their own self-interests and that of the National Marine Fisheries Service management.

Like it or not, these are public resources, and NMFS has a responsibility to manage these resources not just for the benefit of current fishermen, but also for future generations. The agency faces the difficult and challenging task of balancing these interests. There are numerous factors that influence how NMFS balances these interests, but observers should not become a political scapegoat when fishermen become angry with a management decision. Observers provide a critical role in collecting independent, third party data for use in stock assessments. The very reason observers came to be was to provide independent and objective data because fishermen could not be trusted to look beyond their own self-interest. Observers provide unbiased data, but it is not up to them how the agency or public uses this data. I would like to respond to several erroneous statements and mischaracterizations in this article:

1. Observers shouldn’t have to degrade themselves by “looking for a ride.” There are many ways NMFS could support the professionalism of observers. Observers shouldn’t have to “look for a ride.” They should be randomly assigned and, yes, if you refuse, you should definitely be fined or not allowed to fish. How a vessel is chosen should not fall on the observer. For an observer to have to walk the docks at 4 in the morning is dangerous, degrading to the observer, full of bias and indicates a fly-by-night operation. Vessels should be notified by NMFS and the observer arrangements made between NMFS, the vessel and the observer provider.
2. To protect the resource, it has to be monitored continuously. The author clearly does not understand the concept of monitoring a fishery. You can’t just go out one time and apply it to future extractions. The ocean is rapidly changing, so a continual input of what is being removed and the collection of biological life history information is needed to monitor long-term population changes. It’s critical to protecting the resource.

Read the full op-ed at National Fisherman